Misplaced Pages

:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 12: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:05, 13 September 2006 editHoldenhurst (talk | contribs)419 edits Various contributions← Previous edit Revision as of 00:12, 14 September 2006 edit undoBoscovic (talk | contribs)75 edits →Category:Christian mathematiciansNext edit →
Line 273: Line 273:
*'''Keep''' If it is confined to practising Christians, it is a significant and worthwhile category.--] 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' If it is confined to practising Christians, it is a significant and worthwhile category.--] 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' ], but I can't see any sensible reason for wanting this deleted.--] 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' ], but I can't see any sensible reason for wanting this deleted.--] 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' People like Pavel Florensky are definitely noteworthy Christians/Mathematicians! ] 00:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


==== Category:Organized crime people ==== ==== Category:Organized crime people ====

Revision as of 00:12, 14 September 2006

< September 11 September 13 >

September 12

Category:Supporters of George W. Bush

Category:Weaponlord

Category:Weaponlord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. I have never used CFD, so I am unsure of what justifies the deletion here. I was the creator of the category, to group all the Weaponlord characters with the article on the game. However, since then, the character articles have been deleted, and this category will stand with this article (or perhaps one or two others) indefinately, and I simply believe that it is obsolete. J Milburn 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, eternally underpopulated. --tjstrf 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, however, as the author you could have just tagged it with {{db-author}} -- ProveIt 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Thought that may be the case, but I was unsure of the rules relating to categories. J Milburn 20:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional narcissists

Category:Fictional narcissists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Deadliest natural disasters

Category:Deadliest natural disasters into Category:Natural disasters

Pinot noir

Category:Pinot noir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

People by religion and occupation

Category:People by religion and occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not all of us are that techy, I'd have no idea how to use that. And although the German system is interesting it sounds like a massive reorganization for little real reason.--T. Anthony 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep We might as well delete the articles too. There is deletionism, and there is POV-pushing ad extremum, which this nomination indubitably shows. Enough is enough, this is relevant and helpful information, which should not be removed except on a case-by-case basis if it fails out guidelines of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. -- Avi 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Categories should be used only for primary characteristics and not as a poor man database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to Misplaced Pages:Categorization and Help:Category? -- Avi 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This category has subcategories on musicians and writers. There are Gospel or Qawwali singers and Christian writers who are not ordained or deemed theologians.--T. Anthony 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
T. Anthony: You are throwing in a red herring here, because no-one said that people need "ordination" or must be deemed to be "theologians" to qualify as notable. If in fact anyone has done something noteworthy for their faith and is recognized as such, hence meeting the criteria of Misplaced Pages:Notability then their faith is obviously important to who they are regardless of their not being ordained or qualified theologians. But to mention the religion of every Tom-Dick-and-Jane makes no sense, especially when there are so many variant ways of doing it and add to it that the very people themselves do not classify themselves as such. IZAK 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. If the person does Christian or religious music doesn't it seem more straightforward to put them in Category:Christian musicians or Category:Muslim musicians? A general category of Christians or even "Christians known for religious work" could get way overfull, same with Muslims. (Less so with Judaism as it's a much smaller religion) And if you're going to have that plus writers why not a "by occupation" category? Granted the two examples I gave would possibly be better served by say a Category for religion and the arts.--T. Anthony 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also I know what red herring means, placing a link to it seems a bit patronizing.--T. Anthony 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mathematicians by religion

Category:Mathematicians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, the intersection of two categories that are usually unrelated, and one of which is deeply private. There may be a discussion of the way religion has affected mathematics elsewhere, but a category or a list is no means of gathering information that in several cases is ambiguous or to be withheld - non-inclusion seems to be taken as a statement of exclusion. Bellbird 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete all subcats, obviously. --Pjacobi 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I take it you mean to include all the subcats as well, such that they all go, or all stay? If so, it would not trouble me to see them all go, I don't see any compelling need to categorise mathematicans by religion. -- ProveIt 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You likely need to nominate Category:People by religion and occupation, so you know you can keep the pernicious fact some people express their religion in their occupation away from sensitive souls.--T. Anthony 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'd suggest restricting the use of Category:People by religion to criteria already employed by its de: equivalent de:Kategorie:Person (Religion):
  • Personen, deren enzyklopädische Relevanz auf der Ausübung eines religiösen Amtes oder Berufs beruht
  • Personen, deren Biografie durch ihre Religion entscheidend beeinflusst wurde oder wird
  • Personen, die für ihre Religion Wichtigkeit hatten oder haben
Das Ziel dieser Kategorien ist es nicht, alle Personen einer bestimmten Glaubensrichtung zu erfassen.
Rough translation:
  • Persons, whose encyclopedic relevance stems from their religious profession
  • Persons, whose biography is significantly influenced by theor religion
  • Persons, important for their religion
The purpose of these categories is not to cover all adherents of a religion
Pjacobi 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at the moment, until each and every single last category and list by ethnicity and religion is nominated Mad Jack 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again, do you really expect someone to nominate every ethnicity and religion category at once or is this some type of joke? If you WANT them to be deleted, you are majorly slowing down the process. ...And Beyond! 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As with all the previous nomniations, there is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Mathematics but Mathematicians. We view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies . Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- Avi 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And what on earth makes you think that it is valid to classify and "study" human beings in such a way? What will keep a category of, say, Jewish slave traders from arising, other than a (dishonest!) ad-hoc policy? See my comments on Jack O'Lantern's webpage. Bellbird 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's called sociology, Bellbird . And yes, if we have slave traders who can be shown to be verified and reliably Jewish, then, if Category:Slave traders by religion exists, you can make an argument for Category:Jewish slave traders. However, I am certain that you have the intellectual honesty to realize that a category with at most four or five entrants may be considered a borderline category, and there is less reason for it. Categories like Category:Jewish mathematicians and Category:Jewish scientists, for example, have hundreds of entries. The comparison is flawed ab initio on both points, in my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And who told you that "Jew" is a valid sociological category? Or that sociology consists in raw list-making?
As for the lack of biographies on Jewish slave traders (or Jewish speculators, say) - that, I am afraid, is due in part to a lack of interest. I certainly shall not write such biographies myself. Let somebody else do as much - for the purpose of having the category deleted, I would hope. Bellbird 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We don't even have a Category:Slave traders of any kind. We do have Category:Slaveholders. It includes the ethnic subsection Category:Arabian slaveholders. Interestingly in Brazil a small minority of slave owners were Jewish as the former slaves of Jewish people were a segment called the "Julo" in the Palmares (quilombo). I read this in a book on Maroon societies, but it's not meant as any kind of disparagement of Brazilian Jewish people. They were not overrepresented among slaveowners in Brazil and the vast majority of Brazilian slave owners were of course Catholic. The slaves of Jewish people did become noted among some Maroons, possibly because of rarity. Also Jewish slave owners had no urge to convert their slaves so maybe, maybe, they were given greater freedom to maintain African traditional religions.--T. Anthony 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. I see that "Jewish spies" got deleted. How good! And how hypocritical! Bellbird 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Should we make a list of lists of bad Jews that got deleted in the last year or so? Mind you, I am delighted they got deleted. I am not proposing they should be restored. Rather, shouldn't we simply make a list of names of deleted lists? Bellbird 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to Misplaced Pages:Categorization and Help:Category? -- Avi 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. This category is not for those people, it is for anyone who happens to have a Jewish forebearer. Please make your decision so it reflects that. ...And Beyond! 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewish mathematicians

Category:Jewish mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Tagging_living_people_as_Jews, Category talk:Jewish_mathematicians Bellbird 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Jewish Mathematics but Mathematicians. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies . Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- Avi 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Either we categorize mathemations by religion, or we don't. Singling out any particular religion for special treatment is inappropriate. -- ProveIt 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - meh, you know what. The day when one of these users nominated every single list and category by ethnicity for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out. Mad Jack 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Stay tuned. We can and will do that. This CfD doesn't want to single someone out (and not only category by ethnicity, also category by religion). --Pjacobi 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the good things about deleting these categories and lists (all of them), is that I don't have to spend time sourcing them. And, it makes it harder for the "Jewishness deleters" to find these names and delete mentions of their Jewishness. However, when it comes to these nominations, for some strange reasons the nominators always go for the Jews first (if I nominated Greek, Greek-American, British-Greek (yes, it exists) and Greek Orthodox categories and lists for deletion, I would probably be blocked). So, I am voting a strong "Keep" on any of these until every single last category and list is nominated, at which point I will vote "Delete", although that will be fairly pointless, because, the majority of people would vote "Keep". But, as for my "Delete" vote that day - you have that as a promise if you're ever up to it Mad Jack 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's not get into childish accusations of anti-semitism. Anyone in the right mind can see that it just so happens Jewish categories are among the most ridiculous and overhyped on wikipedia, that's the "strange reason" why a lot get nominated. They're also the hardest to delete because everyone fears appearing anti-semitic if they vote "Delete." Yet, other categories are deleted without much problem. I wonder what "strange reason" is behind that. ...And Beyond! 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not anti-Semitism at all that I'm talking about. Just paranoia from these people, some of whom are Jewish and some who are not, that these categories are somehow harmful to the people listed or can place them in danger or label them somehow, etc. That kind of stuff. That's why the user who nominated this nominated this in the first place. My biff is that no one ever singles out all lists of, say, Greeks, Greek-Americans and Greek Orthodox people in the same manner. Mad Jack 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying Catholic lists and categories have been up for deletion many times. Maybe not as many as Jewish, but that's because when Catholic categories are up for deletion the deleters tend to win. As for Eastern Orthodoxy Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians doesn't have many subdivisions to delete. Here's the subcats for it that relate to Greek Orthodoxy: Category:Greek orthodox philosophers and Category:Greek Orthodox clerics. For Russian Orthodoxy I find: Category:Russian Orthodox Christians, Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow, Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus' andCategory:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Pretty much every Eastern Orthodox category I find is for clergy, philosophers, patriarchs, and theologians.--T. Anthony 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Hindu mathematicians was up for delete before this.--T. Anthony 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_31#Category:British_Anglicans --Pjacobi 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What are you trying to tell me? That once a year a non-Jewish category gets nominated? Yes, I know that. Mad Jack 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not once a year. A variety of Christian and Catholic lists I worked on were deleted. As were Categories. In fact the massive deletion of any reference to anyone's religion ever was part of why I once left. (I mean the article on Augustin Louis Cauchy I don't even think mentioned he was a Catholic royalist until I added it. That omission caused a person at the talk page to ask why he was against oaths to the Republic.)--T. Anthony 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, categorizing by ethnicity and by religion is bad™. But I assume this must be addressed by a more ambitious attack, including better formulated rationale for deletion, comparison with other encyclopedias, and of course listing all affected categories. --Pjacobi 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep This debate is getting tiring. If any particular subject is of interest to many other people, if the info is correct and does not violate any kind of copyright or privacy restriction, it should be in Misplaced Pages. All this moral talk is of no relevance. There is a reason why we don't have categories like blond Australian zookepers - noone cares. If some people care, let them create such category. Just make sure they use reliable sources. Mhym 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, absolutely NO legitimate reason to delete it. Jews have made great contributions to math and science, as shown with the amount of Jewish Nobel Prize recipients. Great category. --Shamir1 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that these categories do not take piety or religious affiliation into consideration, how is this different from saying "Whites have made great contributions to science, as measured by Nobel Prizes"? Could we create a category of "Black Criminals"? After all, this moral talk is just nonsense, isn't it? Bellbird 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Incidentally - what great contributions have you made? Bellbird 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to Misplaced Pages:Categorization and Help:Category? -- Avi 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's because this category does not use the same standard as Category:Christian mathematicians. It's much more relaxed in its inclusion. ...And Beyond! 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment - it was only debate-inducing because anti-Hindu users attacked me by putting certain cats up first.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at the talk page of Jewish mathematicians. This category causes a lot of problems. ...And Beyond! 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Jewish mathematicians has actual controversy. Hindu mathematicians is merely used by people to denigrate the religion, not because of any lapses in research which may or may not happen in this cat. I dont discriminate so all cats of mathematicians should be kept.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm baffled by the suggestion that this category causes any problems. How can it?--Brownlee 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see Category:Misplaced Pages notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO Misplaced Pages:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that. IZAK 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Religion is irrelevant to mathematics. Osomec 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per very straightforward Misplaced Pages categorization policy. — Dark Shikari /contribs 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you vote against deleting the "Jewish spies" category, which was deleted (fortunately!) some time ago? What about the lists of "leading Jewish bolsheviks" or "Jewish members of the Soviet secret police" beloved of antisemites (see Talk:Jew)? Mind you, these lists are large and by true and verifiable. If there is a problem, it resides in the pratice of categorisation itself.

(By the way, all of this talk about sociology is silly. New Yorkers are, large and by, not as portrayed by Woody Allen; generally, only the generation of immigrants has clear and strong common traits. When it comes to anybody anywhere else, the label - as an ethnic label - can be utterly misleading. In general, it is a label that is being adjudicated by descent - any descent. Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

Category:Short story collections by Stephen King

Category:Short story collections by Stephen King to Category:Stephen King short story collections

Category:WP System

Category:WP System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 80 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 81 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 82 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 83 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 84 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 85 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 86 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 87 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 89 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:WP 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Provisional delete although I'm willing to wait. This looks like some sort of Library of Congress Classification system for grouping cats. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an article classification system in utero. It's intended to be integrated with Watchlist and Search but of course this will require developer work. You see how far I got; then I had an extensive series of chats with some of the dev team on IRC. The reaction was very good but this system may be implemented at a much deeper level and involve a radical engine enhancement, which of course will not happen any time soon. So I put it aside pending more dev input.
For my money, you can delete it if you like -- but why? It's not as though it incurs any significant overhead just sitting there. It's entirely possible that it will indeed prove useful in future when the dev ball gets rolling. I hope it's not "awfully" complicated; you already see the full depth -- that is, 2 levels, no more. This is not intended to be a specific categorization scheme like LC or Dewey Decimal, where every book has its own number in order. Rather, it's just 100 broad categories of article topics. It could not be much simpler and still have any utility.
I did put a fairish bit of work into this and whether it is eventually implemented in its current form or deeper within the engine, I'd not like to see the work done so far wasted. I'd say, move it into my userspace if it offends your eyes but since it's made of Category pages, I don't think that will work well. For now, I'd suggest you just leave it until somebody can show it's doing harm. Either way, no big deal -- but please don't lose the content. John Reid 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete G4: Recreation of deleted material. Avi 18:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Penguin Wikipedians

Category:Penguin Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Christian mathematicians

Category:Christian mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Nearly one third of the world is "Christian" in some way, rendering this category completely ridiculous. Furthermore there's nothing that should be special about a mathematician being of the Christian religion any more than a mathematician being anything more specific, like a Mormon or Baptist. Are we going to make categories for mathematicians with blue eyes next? This does not appear to be category of Christian followers who are still mathematicians and even if it was its silly because nothing prevents a mathematician from BEING a Christian, so its not something to note....And Beyond! 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absurd. Pavel Vozenilek 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Brammen 11:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if and only if Category:Jewish Mathematicians is deleted; Keep if the latter is kept. It wasn't my idea to create this category, by the way; it may be only coincidence that it has been created at the same time that there is a discussion in Category talk:Jewish Mathematicians going on. If this category were to be kept like the category Category:Jewish Mathematicians is kept, it would contain every single baptised mathematician (including some living members of Category:Jewish Mathematicians!). Um. (Of course, I would personally prefer this category to be deleted - but, if it was created to make a point, it is a good one.) Bellbird 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Christian Mathematics but Mathematicians. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is comping from someone with deletionist tendencies . -- Avi 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I said a lot. According to "me", why not gender, birthdays, and birthplace?? Well, I never posed those questions. We can put whatever is somewhat relevant to their lives in their corresponding articles but a category? Are we really going to be making Category:Mathematicians born in New Jersey, Category:Mathematicians born in 1878? I suggest you change this to a "comment" rather than a vote because you don't appear to be arguing FOR this specific category. ...And Beyond! 15:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
On year are you aware of Category:Mathematicians by century?
Why not New Jersey? We already have Category:People from New Jersey by occupation--T. Anthony 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Mathematicians isn't one of them for a reason. Then we can argue for breaking it down into city and region Category:Mathematicians born in Dallas, Category:Mathematicians from the Pacific rim ...And Beyond! 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No we wouldn't that's silly. We have Category:New Jersey actors, but we're nowhere near having Category:Newark actors. Again what's your reason not New Jersey? You are aware of say Princeton University and other places mathematicians live/lived?--T. Anthony 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I said "born" but it was really just an example. We can't make thousands of categories for every state or province a mathematician is born in. ...And Beyond! 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Christian scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- Avi 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
People could also be doing a study on how left-handedness correlates with mathematical aptitude. We can't help everyone with their Psychology homework. ...And Beyond! 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly one other reason is that some of these people did not seem to belong in Category:Christians in science as their math work only seemed vaguely related to science. If this category dies I hope someone will put them in the main cat for me.(And if that's deleted eek) I've also tried to remove a few names that were marginal.--T. Anthony 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We shouldn't make categories for every single issue concerning a group of people. I don't see why being a priest and a mathematician or learning mathematics at a Christian institution is so relevant we must categorize it. Maybe its semi-relevant information in the article, but lets not push the boundaires. With that precedent, Category:Lawyer mathematicians, Category:Doctor mathematicians could work for people who studied Law or Medicine before mathematics. ...And Beyond! 15:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't indiscriminate. I'm not mixing professions or anything like that. I'm going by what can be a defining characteristic of a person as mathematician is a person. I ask you look at who I actually put in the category. Look at the noted I added to it. I gave support why the subject is of academic and historical interest. Many of your objections could apply to almost anything in Category:People by religion and occupation, the various occupation segments of Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, Category:Women by occupation, or Category:Nationalities by occupation--T. Anthony 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
So would you be for something like Category:Lesbian, gay, bisxual, or transgender mathematicians? That's a defining characteristic of a person and, like you said, it's no more indiscriminate than what we have here. ...And Beyond! 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure except I think we already have something like that with Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists and engineers.--T. Anthony 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Crap! Categories on en.wikipedia are really out of control. Next stop: Category:Left handed mathematicans and Categorie:Brunette fictional deities. Anyone has some spare servers to fork Misplaced Pages now? --Pjacobi 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please, vote for this category at the moment. If this one goes, so will others like it. "Don't single out a category" is not a valid argument. ...And Beyond! 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I voted delete on the umbrella nomination. My view is that they should all stay, or they should all go. I could live with either of those. -- ProveIt 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete but only on the condition that all the others go as well. -- ProveIt 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - meh, you know what. The day when one of these users nominated every single list and category by ethnicity for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out. Mad Jack 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you realize nobody in Misplaced Pages History will ever do what you're requesting. On wikipedia, we must single out certain categories to use as precedents. Oh and "Christian" is not an ethnicity. ...And Beyond! 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant by ethnicity and religion. However, certainly we may not have an "Italian American politicians" category but not an "Irish-American politicians category". We either have all or we don't have any. Mad Jack 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does no one look at the category before making a "delete" or "keep" comment? This is not a category for mathematicians who were inspired by their religios beliefs so that is totally irrelevant. ...And Beyond! 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get dragged back into this, but I created this category. I know what I created for and you're wrong. This is not a category for mathematicians who happen to be Christian. This is a category for people whose significance is both math and Christianity. Several of the names are beatified or canonized in their respective faith. Would you just actually look at the category I created and the names I put it in?--T. Anthony 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a category for those who are known for their Christianity and mathematics. In certain cases it involves those who tried to combine the too, to take one example Pavel Florensky. See Category:Mathematics and culture for other elements of the humanities that have been related to math and Category:Pythagoreans for how math can be almost indistinguishable from philosophy or religion in certain historical periods.

. And Beyond you are wrong. The scope does cite it. I 'do read the article.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
T. Anthony added the description only AFTER it was nominated for deletion:
Because I assumed it was obvious that this would be for people who are relevant as Christians and mathematicians so at first I saw no need to put that in. The names being Jesuits, monks, saints, and professors of theology seemed to make it clear. However whenever religion comes up you have to spell things out in minute detail or the hysterics will comes out.--T. Anthony 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That said if this is deleted would it be acceptable for me to put these names back in Category:Christians in science? Or is that next to be deleted?--T. Anthony 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. (cur) (last) 16:12, 12 September 2006 T. Anthony (Talk | contribs)
  2. (cur) (last) 15:54, 12 September 2006 T. Anthony (Talk | contribs)
  3. (cur) (last) 03:22, 12 September 2006 ...And Beyond! (Talk | contribs)
If anything, he should have named the category something more relevant. "Christian mathematicians" gives off the same impression as "Jewish mathematicians' that being, mathematicians who are that religion. Regardless, it's listcruft. ...And Beyond! 03:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with renaming it Category:Christians in the history of mathematics, I just didn't see this name as a problem. It seemed concise and clear.--T. Anthony 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Organized crime people

and

Category:Organized criminals

( A )  Merge both to Category:People in organized crime, leaving redirects; or
( B )  Merge Category:Organized crime people to Category:Organized criminals, leaving redirect.

Category:Books by Dito Montiel

Author (Dito Montiel) with a single book (by Amazon), though filmed. I cannot judge whether the book (A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints) and the film (A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (film)) are notable but the category should be deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Theology

Proposed merge with Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine. I don't care which is used as the final title, but I really don't see a useful difference between the two topics. -- Beland 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

UMass basketball

The University of Massachusetts Amherst is another school that has separate nicknames for its men's and women's athletic programs. See this discussion of its "Minutemen" nickname from the school's official athletics site. If you search the same site for UMass women's athletic programs, you'll find that they consistently call women's teams and athletes "Minutewomen". By the way, "UMass" is a widely used abbreviation for the school, and the school itself uses it for branding purposes, especially in athletics. — Dale Arnett 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)